Nah, it's you who'd be surprised to find that little Billy and Katie are really actors. You've been the result of an ongoing experiment over the past 20 years. The intent of the experiment is to try to determine the optimal artificial environment to place geeks into in order to squeeze the most work out of them.
The idea being that a happy geek is a productive geek, but the problem of course was that no geek could ever truly be happy as they can never hope to bag a spouse, let alone get laid and have kids.
Well, we sure found a way didn't we!
It would be detramental to you now at this point to realize the truth about your life, you'd just shrivel up and die. Therefore, we must inform you that this has been an April Fools Joke! (Really, it is, and we mean that;)
You're sig's wrong, but you must know that. I'm just trying to determine the point?
The traditional joke is 'There are 10...' The alternate joke that uses 11 is: 'There are 11...those who know binary, those that don't, and those that think they do but don't'
So is there some obscure point to your version? Or are you just a cheeky monkey?
Ah, the old "even though he's probably not that dumb, lets suggest that he is, point him wrong, show that we're god and know all, and whore that karma baybee!"
1) When I read it, there was nowhere in the world that it was already April 1st.
2) I mentioned that, as it was a solid fact (google it yerself).
3) I would have mentioned that I had heard rumors to this effect a couple of months ago to back myself up, but that would have been stupid because they are just that, rumors.
1) This is real news, I first saw it posted early yesterday, so no, not April Fools, or maybe 'April Fools, it's not an April Fools!'
2) PJ has never stated that he would not do the Hobbit. The most he has ever officially stated was that there were no plans at this time to do the Hobbit, but regardless he wasn't going to be doing the hobbit right away after LOTR is done.
Dude, you said your point, I said mine, somebody else even said we're both right in differing ways, I thought we'd already agreed to disagree.
Now you post more BS and then as me to stop being so difficult? Piss off eh?
Besides, are you a marketing research analyst? No? Then what makes you so right about the name? Maybe it will make a go of it simply because of the strange name.
Really, if somebody is going online and wants to find out about this 'there' thing, what will they find? Well...there.com right? They keep getting this same page...gee, the marketers at there.com must be morons ehh? All these people keep ending up at their site when they just want to read _about_ there.com.
There is a good chance that this is actually a very good marketing choice for a name, or it may go bust because of the name. Point is, Michal said it couldn't be searched on which is blatantly untrue, and it was qualified in no way so quit defending him and spouting the same crap about the inherent searchability of 'there'.
Basically, you have proven to me that 'There' will probably actually work as a name alot better than most. Think of it this way, how many people know that There.com exists? Quite a few at this point right? And what is it? Duh... And what does it do? Um, I... And yet, you know it exists...funny that...seems like it may just be working.
It's a freaking blown up chat room, that has no viable market, so they're trying to create markets for it, but all they can come up with is replicating real world markets in their virtual world.
Look, if you don't care so much, why bother replying? Or would you rather just complain?
I said nothing at all about the story BTW, which is why lots around here get annoyed by Michael's BS, because it deters from the stories that he did not write, find OR submit. Sure, I could filter out his stories in my prefs, but what good would that do? I'd be helping the problem by ignoring it AND I'd miss the stories.
Um, I'm not disputing Michaels 'probable' intent, but he did say, and I quote, 'a terrible name for a game since you can't search on it'.
No qualification whatsoever, and besides, it's more BS editorializing.
Michael is an idiot, plain and simple. Nobody cares what his point of view is, mostly because he has no business giving it to us in the first place. His job is to post articles. If he wants to continue commenting on articles he posts, he should join the party.
And, FYI, time may very well prove you a moron too. Ever heard of the Who? Who you say? The Who to you too. Gee, that would have made a bad website name though, can't search on that, that would never work blah blah piss off.
Then imagine more serious applications coexisting with the shopping and the fun: Architectural firms taking advantage of There's near-real physics to stress-test building designs by coaxing crowds of avatars to visit the virtual structures. Or Army divisions training en masse in virtual replicas of enemy territory.
Wow. They're off their frickin rockers I do believe.
Yeah, we'll all just choose to forgo reality, and while we're at it, choose there.com to replace it for us.
Again, wow. Just a wee bit of a god complex out of control perhaps?
It's not refresh rates that are important, it's the contrast and color settings. LCD's are totally inadequate for graphics design. Shift your eyes a couple of degrees while looking at an LCD screen and, whoa! all the colors and contrasting changes magically right before your very eyes! CRT's are extremely accurate and reliable with color, LCD's aren't even a little bit.
Seems to me that you're a tad bit jealous that you DIDN'T subscribe, and thus didn't see the article early enough to snap one of those IPAQ's up for $10 dollars.
Besides, how much subscription could you have bought for the difference? A good lot without a doubt. But no, that's not value, it must be a thought provoking article that is worthy of your superior intellect...wait...why are you here then?
Oh, and no we don't value you because you submit stories, post comments and moderate, it's your big **** that keeps all of us coming back;-)
Sure, possibly funny in the right context, but this ain't it! Just a totally offtopic MS bash, and it gets modded funny, go figure. Just another day at/.
You're insisting that you stay alive while you are frozen?
Chances are you're way past dead anyways at the point of freezing, otherwise why would you be frozen? If there was already a cure for your ailment, you wouldn't need freezing would you?
Thus, it really doesn't matter if we replace the water in you with antifreeze, or a nice 180 proof whiskey or whatever does it?
Why would you want that? Oh, so you can write shit assed web pages that won't EVER display on anything other than the latest WinWhatever? (Probably also all 500+k pages just ripe full of adds and bs media crap that serves no purpose other than to trap and stun your end user)
Does nobody else around here see what he's suggesting? My god, this is/., what the f? Modded as +5 interesting no less...cold day in hell it is I guess...
I interpreted the post to mean just that, that only 5 people at a time would be actually using a license, thus bringing them into compliance. I believe that is the whole point.
His question rather, I believe, is more about whether MS considers this using 10 licenses, one each on the host terminals and one for each user accessing a host. (AFAIK, this is not the case anyways...he should be just fine using the setup he has come up with).
You are right, if the average gamer being talked about is a/. geek.
But I'd have to agree with Walton on this one, the average user is still scared crapless about giving up a credit card. It's not that their paranoia is based in reality, but rather their perception thereof.
As well, as he mentioned in the article, this is a much more prevalent problem outside of north america.
Bottom line is he has the experiance to know whether this is really a problem or not, you can speculate all you like but I don't really think he's lying about this, what would the point be?
Slashdot Mirror
If at first you don't succeed, skydiving wasn't for you ;)
Nah, it's you who'd be surprised to find that little Billy and Katie are really actors. You've been the result of an ongoing experiment over the past 20 years. The intent of the experiment is to try to determine the optimal artificial environment to place geeks into in order to squeeze the most work out of them.
;)
The idea being that a happy geek is a productive geek, but the problem of course was that no geek could ever truly be happy as they can never hope to bag a spouse, let alone get laid and have kids.
Well, we sure found a way didn't we!
It would be detramental to you now at this point to realize the truth about your life, you'd just shrivel up and die. Therefore, we must inform you that this has been an April Fools Joke! (Really, it is, and we mean that
You're sig's wrong, but you must know that.
I'm just trying to determine the point?
The traditional joke is 'There are 10...'
The alternate joke that uses 11 is:
'There are 11...those who know binary, those that don't, and those that think they do but don't'
So is there some obscure point to your version?
Or are you just a cheeky monkey?
Isn't that what your Aibo is for?
Ah, the old "even though he's probably not that dumb, lets suggest that he is, point him wrong, show that we're god and know all, and whore that karma baybee!"
1) When I read it, there was nowhere in the world that it was already April 1st.
2) I mentioned that, as it was a solid fact (google it yerself).
3) I would have mentioned that I had heard rumors to this effect a couple of months ago to back myself up, but that would have been stupid because they are just that, rumors.
1) This is real news, I first saw it posted early yesterday, so no, not April Fools, or maybe 'April Fools, it's not an April Fools!'
2) PJ has never stated that he would not do the Hobbit. The most he has ever officially stated was that there were no plans at this time to do the Hobbit, but regardless he wasn't going to be doing the hobbit right away after LOTR is done.
Wow.
Dude, you said your point, I said mine, somebody else even said we're both right in differing ways, I thought we'd already agreed to disagree.
Now you post more BS and then as me to stop being so difficult? Piss off eh?
Besides, are you a marketing research analyst? No? Then what makes you so right about the name? Maybe it will make a go of it simply because of the strange name.
Really, if somebody is going online and wants to find out about this 'there' thing, what will they find? Well...there.com right? They keep getting this same page...gee, the marketers at there.com must be morons ehh? All these people keep ending up at their site when they just want to read _about_ there.com.
There is a good chance that this is actually a very good marketing choice for a name, or it may go bust because of the name. Point is, Michal said it couldn't be searched on which is blatantly untrue, and it was qualified in no way so quit defending him and spouting the same crap about the inherent searchability of 'there'.
Basically, you have proven to me that 'There' will probably actually work as a name alot better than most. Think of it this way, how many people know that There.com exists? Quite a few at this point right? And what is it? Duh... And what does it do? Um, I... And yet, you know it exists...funny that...seems like it may just be working.
Thank you! Someone else around here who can think for themselves before yanking out their wallet! ;-)
There is hope after all
Uh, yeah, ok.
It's a freaking blown up chat room, that has no viable market, so they're trying to create markets for it, but all they can come up with is replicating real world markets in their virtual world.
You gonna buy into it? One born every minute ehh?
Look, if you don't care so much, why bother replying? Or would you rather just complain?
:p
I said nothing at all about the story BTW, which is why lots around here get annoyed by Michael's BS, because it deters from the stories that he did not write, find OR submit. Sure, I could filter out his stories in my prefs, but what good would that do? I'd be helping the problem by ignoring it AND I'd miss the stories.
Besides, it's been so nice chatting with you
Um, I'm not disputing Michaels 'probable' intent, but he did say, and I quote, 'a terrible name for a game since you can't search on it'.
No qualification whatsoever, and besides, it's more BS editorializing.
Michael is an idiot, plain and simple. Nobody cares what his point of view is, mostly because he has no business giving it to us in the first place. His job is to post articles. If he wants to continue commenting on articles he posts, he should join the party.
And, FYI, time may very well prove you a moron too. Ever heard of the Who? Who you say? The Who to you too. Gee, that would have made a bad website name though, can't search on that, that would never work blah blah piss off.
Poster of the article is a moron.
Can't search on there? wtf.
First hit on google is, go figure, there.com.
Nope, doesn't work, can't do it.
I'll second that.
Wow, what a bunch of suckers...hook line and sinker.
It's not refresh rates that are important, it's the contrast and color settings. LCD's are totally inadequate for graphics design. Shift your eyes a couple of degrees while looking at an LCD screen and, whoa! all the colors and contrasting changes magically right before your very eyes! CRT's are extremely accurate and reliable with color, LCD's aren't even a little bit.
For you, special deal! You can pay $0.01 for sending messages which will entitle you to receive messages for a meager 1 cent each! What a deal ehh?
Seems to me that you're a tad bit jealous that you DIDN'T subscribe, and thus didn't see the article early enough to snap one of those IPAQ's up for $10 dollars.
;-)
Besides, how much subscription could you have bought for the difference? A good lot without a doubt. But no, that's not value, it must be a thought provoking article that is worthy of your superior intellect...wait...why are you here then?
Oh, and no we don't value you because you submit stories, post comments and moderate, it's your big **** that keeps all of us coming back
Sure, possibly funny in the right context, but this ain't it! Just a totally offtopic MS bash, and it gets modded funny, go figure. Just another day at /.
Hmm...
apreciate or appreciate?
Ironic isn't it?
What's that about judging others, hmmm...
You're insisting that you stay alive while you are frozen?
Chances are you're way past dead anyways at the point of freezing, otherwise why would you be frozen? If there was already a cure for your ailment, you wouldn't need freezing would you?
Thus, it really doesn't matter if we replace the water in you with antifreeze, or a nice 180 proof whiskey or whatever does it?
Why would you want that?
/., what the f?
Oh, so you can write shit assed web pages that won't EVER display on anything other than the latest WinWhatever? (Probably also all 500+k pages just ripe full of adds and bs media crap that serves no purpose other than to trap and stun your end user)
Does nobody else around here see what he's suggesting? My god, this is
Modded as +5 interesting no less...cold day in hell it is I guess...
I interpreted the post to mean just that, that only 5 people at a time would be actually using a license, thus bringing them into compliance.
I believe that is the whole point.
His question rather, I believe, is more about whether MS considers this using 10 licenses, one each on the host terminals and one for each user accessing a host. (AFAIK, this is not the case anyways...he should be just fine using the setup he has come up with).
Hey, I had one of those. ...well...if there had been a good game for it it would have rocked! heh.
It rocked man!
You are right, if the average gamer being talked about is a /. geek.
But I'd have to agree with Walton on this one, the average user is still scared crapless about giving up a credit card. It's not that their paranoia is based in reality, but rather their perception thereof.
As well, as he mentioned in the article, this is a much more prevalent problem outside of north america.
Bottom line is he has the experiance to know whether this is really a problem or not, you can speculate all you like but I don't really think he's lying about this, what would the point be?
In other words SCO appears to believe that fair competition is unfair...to them anyways ;-)
It must be anti-competitive than right? heh, what a joke.
SCO -> Flames -> Crash -> Burn...bubye, don't let the door hit you on the way out...